Andrew etal:
1. Again, th an ks for your key citation by Kriegler, etal, which (repeating)
is: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-012-0681-4 ; 'Is
atmospheric carbon dioxide removal a game changer for climate change
mitigation? " Elmar Kriegler 1 , Ottmar Edenhofer 1 , Lena Reuster 1 , Gunnar
Luderer 1 and David Klein 1
I was a tad disappointed and surprised that an art icle on BECCS woul d not
once mention the word "biochar" . B ut since the resource and CDR are in
common, there m ay be some value to the biochar community in this artic le ,
especially as it is NOT behind the usual paywall.
2. The full pdf shows this is part of a (presumably) forthcoming special issue
of Climatic Change (CC) devoted only to CDR. I could not find it as being
already out and therefore could not find a full Table of Contents. But by
searching at the CC site under the name of one of the special edition's
editors, I came up with quite a few more - most also free. They can be found by
going to the general CC website and doing a search. My search finding these
below was:
http://link.springer.com/search?facet-publication-title=%22Climatic+Change%22&query=socolow&search-within=Journal&sortOrder=newestFirst
The other articles I found and give here to save others' time are (not in any
logical order):
a. ."Adjustment of the natural ocean carbon cycle to negative emission rates";
M. Vichi 1, 2 , A. Navarra 1, 2 and P. G. Fogli 1
b. "Direct air capture of CO 2 and climate stabilization: A model based
assessment"; Chen Chen 1, 2 and Massimo Tavoni 1, 2
c. "The role of negative CO 2 emissions for reaching 2 °C--insights from
integrated assessment modelling"; Detlef P. van Vuuren 1, 2, 4 , Sebastiaan
Deetman 1 , Jasper van Vliet 1 , Maarten van den Berg 1 , Bas J. van Ruijven 3
and Barbara Koelbl 2
d. "Ecological limits to terrestrial biological carbon dioxide removal" ; Lydia
J. Smith 1, 2 and Margaret S. Torn 1, 2
e. " Exploring negative territory Carbon dioxide removal and climate policy
initiatives"; James Meadowcrof 6. ;
f. "Can radiative forcing be limited to 2.6 Wm-2 without negative emissions
from bioenergy AND CO2 capture and storage? "; James Edmonds & Patrick Luckow &
Katherine Calvin &
Marshall Wise & Jim Dooley & Page Kyle & Son H. Kim & Pralit Patel & Leon
Clarke
g. "Optimal mitigation strategies with negative emission technologies and
carbon sinks under uncertainty"; Sabine Fuss &Wolf Heinrich Reuter & Jana
Szolgayová &
Michael Obersteiner
3 Not free, but in same future special issue: "Direct air capture of CO 2 with
chemicals: optimization of a two-loop hydroxide carbonate system using a
countercurrent air-liquid contactor ":
Marco Mazzotti , Renato Baciocchi , Michael J. Desmond , Robert H. Socolow (Not
AT ALL encouraging)
4. I haven't read any of these, but a few briefly mention biochar and/or make a
case for CDR. I will try to identify those later.
Andrew - again thanks for this important (but somewhat disappointing) CDR lead.
Ron
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Lockley" <[email protected]>
To: "geoengineering" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 8:17:48 AM
Subject: [geo] Is atmospheric carbon dioxide removal a game changer for climate
change mitigation? Kriegler et al | Climatic Change
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-012-0681-4
Is atmospheric carbon dioxide removal a game changer for climate
change mitigation?
Elmar Kriegler, Ottmar Edenhofer, Lena Reuster, Gunnar Luderer, David Klein
Abstract
The ability to directly remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere
allows the decoupling of emissions and emissions control in space and
time. We ask the question whether this unique feature of carbon
dioxide removal technologies fundamentally alters the dynamics of
climate mitigation pathways. The analysis is performed in the coupled
energy-economy-climate model ReMIND using the bioenergy with CCS route
as an application of CDR technology. BECCS is arguably the least cost
CDR option if biomass availability is not a strongly limiting factor.
We compare mitigation pathways with and without BECCS to explore the
impact of CDR technologies on the mitigation portfolio. Effects are
most pronounced for stringent climate policies where BECCS is a key
technology for the effectiveness of carbon pricing policies. The
decoupling of emissions and emissions control allows prolonging the
use of fossil fuels in sectors that are difficult to decarbonize,
particularly in the transport sector. It also balances the
distribution of mitigation costs across future generations. CDR is not
a silver bullet technology. The largest part of emissions reductions
continues to be provided by direct mitigation measures at the
emissions source. The value of CDR lies in its flexibility to
alleviate the most costly constraints on mitigating emissions.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
